If one doesn't believe in God one then it doesn't follow that one is "against God", as if you are in opposition to God.

Actually, it does follow, if they argue against God Tommy. Again, the premise isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t whether or not someone is an atheist; the premise is Ã¢â‚¬Å“If you make an assertion, you are obligated to provide evidence for your assertion.Ã¢â‚¬ÂIt then follows; if you make an argument Ã¢â‚¬Å“for or against GodÃ¢â‚¬Â, or any other argument, you are obligated to provide evidence to support your assertion (or prepare to be exposed). And this does not include the equivocations of misdirection, straw men, red herrings, non sequiturs, tautologies (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) such as Ã¢â‚¬Å“you cannot prove a negativeÃ¢â‚¬Â, teapots in space, unicorns on Pluto (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦).

I vaguely recall some NT quote of Jesus stating this but "against God" does not logically follow from not believing in God.

Provide the scripture Ã¢â‚¬Å“in contextÃ¢â‚¬Â, and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be more than happy to discuss it with you. But, the point you just made is no more cogent than the unicorn or teapot logical fallacies.

Where have I compared God to any of those things?

If you read the statement in context, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll soon realize that it is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“generalizationÃ¢â‚¬Â analogues to you argument of Ã¢â‚¬Å“proving a negativeÃ¢â‚¬Â. The Ã¢â‚¬Å“youÃ¢â‚¬Â was a generalization as well. If you took it the wrong way, I apologize, But the analogy standsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

My reference to God as a negative describes the outlook of an atheist who indeed believes that there is no God.

Therefore, if that atheist makes an argument against God, that atheist is Ã¢â‚¬Å“responsibleÃ¢â‚¬Â to provide evidence to support said argument. That atheist cannot hide behind the smoke screen of Ã¢â‚¬Å“negativismÃ¢â‚¬Â.

I don't know if supernatural entities exist but for the reason given lean toward skepticism.

The supernatural is Ã¢â‚¬Å“relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural lawsÃ¢â‚¬Â. And we know of many-many phenomena that fit this bill; Memories, thoughts, altruistic love, the Law of Logic, the Scientific method (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦). Therefore YOU know of many Ã¢â‚¬Å“supernatural entitiesÃ¢â‚¬Â that truly exist.

An understanding of medicine, physics and chemistry, for instance, offer real explanations whereas we now know that demons don't cause mental illness, chariots don't pull the sun across the sky and spells don't turn lead into gold.

First, we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“understandÃ¢â‚¬Â physics, we know a little about what we label as Ã¢â‚¬Å“physicsÃ¢â‚¬Â. And we have very few explanations, and the more we discover, the less we seemingly know. Therefore you are making statements that you are attempting to tie a Ã¢â‚¬Å“factualÃ¢â‚¬Â inference to an Ã¢â‚¬Å“unknownÃ¢â‚¬Â quantity. Secondly, the red herrings of Ã¢â‚¬Å“chariots pulling the sun across the skyÃ¢â‚¬Â and alchemy wont Ã¢â‚¬Å“flyÃ¢â‚¬Â here, as they are non sequiturs well outside the context of the conversation.

Common ancestry implies the origin of life is explained by self-replicating chemistry.

Another non sequitur Tommy; Common ancestry has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, and is inserted here as nothing more than another red herring. But, your statement is faith based at best.

Really? Then how does Ã¢â‚¬Å“natureÃ¢â‚¬Â select? What is Ã¢â‚¬Å“natureÃ¢â‚¬Â that it can Ã¢â‚¬Å“make a selectionÃ¢â‚¬Â?

"Something from nothing" was already done. Repeatedly. In Miller-Urey and Miller-Urey derivatives. The issue "something from nothing" isn't an issue at all, but rather "the right things from the right mix".

Really? Then where did they get the components to conduct the failed experiment? I say failed, because they did not produce life. The issue "something from nothing" is an issue, because Ã¢â‚¬Å“naturalismÃ¢â‚¬Â has absolutely NO answer for the origins of the elements of life. Therefore, you are begging the very question, because the right things must exist before they can become the right mix. AND the right mix begs for a Ã¢â‚¬Å“MixerÃ¢â‚¬Â.

Eh, dogmatism -much like beauty- is all relative to the beholder.

No, dogmatism is: Ã¢â‚¬Å“the tendency to express strongly held opinions in a way that suggests they should be accepted without questionÃ¢â‚¬Â. Much like Ã¢â‚¬Å“non-theists come here on their own Ã¢â‚¬Å“missionÃ¢â‚¬Â as well. Because, if it werenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t, they (the non-theist) wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be coming here attempting to make a case so dogmatically.Ã¢â‚¬Â And supposed Ã¢â‚¬Å“agnosticsÃ¢â‚¬Â coming here attempting to make a case for Ã¢â‚¬Å“atheismÃ¢â‚¬Â. Kind of strange, isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it?

And not really, I just couldn't leave the 'affiliation' thing blank and it seemed like the mildest option. I think evolution -micro by observation and macro by logical extension of micro and sound theory- is real, but as to whether God is at the end of it all...who knows?

Evolution logically, rationally and scientifically isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t atheistic Joe. Therefore, and attempt to make it so is a non sequitur. Macro isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a theory, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an hypothesis, or model at best; Therefore that argument fails. Macro isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t logical, rational or scientific, because micro doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t prove to Ã¢â‚¬Å“moveÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ to macro; therefore, that that argument fails as well.

Provide the scripture Ã¢â‚¬Å“in contextÃ¢â‚¬Â, and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be more than happy to discuss it with you.

It's the quote about "who is not with me is against me" but it hardly matters as disbelief does not necessitate opposition.

Therefore, if that atheist makes an argument against God, that atheist is Ã¢â‚¬Å“responsibleÃ¢â‚¬Â to provide evidence to support said argument. That atheist cannot hide behind the smoke screen of Ã¢â‚¬Å“negativismÃ¢â‚¬Â.

The diffculty of trying to provide evidence for a negative is a reality. Why do you consider it a smokescreen?

The supernatural is Ã¢â‚¬Å“relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural lawsÃ¢â‚¬Â. And we know of many-many phenomena that fit this bill; Memories, thoughts, altruistic love, the Law of Logic, the Scientific method (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦). Therefore YOU know of many Ã¢â‚¬Å“supernatural entitiesÃ¢â‚¬Â that truly exist.

I would define the supernatural as that which can never be understood by the natural sciences as it transcends natural causation. I don't know many people who would consider phenomena such as memories or love supernatural.

Secondly, the red herrings of Ã¢â‚¬Å“chariots pulling the sun across the skyÃ¢â‚¬Â and alchemy wont Ã¢â‚¬Å“flyÃ¢â‚¬Â here, as they are non sequiturs well outside the context of the conversation.Another non sequitur Tommy; Common ancestry has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, and is inserted here as nothing more than another red herring. But, your statement is faith based at best.

I was responding to comments you made about the supernatural and and about origins in post 116.

Of course, that is a non sequitur. Christians claim that God exists based upon Ã¢â‚¬Å“observedÃ¢â‚¬Â evidences. Atheists claim God doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist due to their denial of said evidences. And, for your information Ã¢â‚¬Å“lacking a beliefÃ¢â‚¬Â IS a belief none-the less; you either believe for, or you believe against. It is an incredulity, but it is a type of belief none-the-less.

How can lacking a belief in something be a belief in itself? I'm assuming you don't believe in Odin. It's an unnecessary word game to say that you believe in not believing in Odin.

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s pretty easy actuallyÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ neither you, nor I, or anyone else for that matter, has/have been to Pluto, therefore you could not have possibly know that unicorns exist on Pluto - That would be strike one. You have no corroborating evidence for your accusations, nor have you provided un-impugned testimony from others to back up your assertion Ã¢â‚¬â€œ That would be strike two. Therefore, by making such a claim, you would be either delusional or lying Ã¢â‚¬â€œ That would be strike three!

Pluto wasn't the best example, I'll give you that. But I believe that there are invisible fairies that go around causing seemingly random events to happen. I have friends that also believe in the fairies. Please disprove my pixies.

You are making a false assumption that God is intangible: First, for you to make such a claim, you would have to know something about God, but, since you claim to be agnostic, your claim is self-refuting. Second, Jesus claimed to be God. And His life is corroborated and substantiated by no less than twelve un-impugned eyewitnesses, and as many as five hundred. It would follow, as well, that at least that many were witness to His miracles as well. Also, that would be an equivocation as per #Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s 4, 5, and 6 of the OP.

Being agnostic doesn't mean I haven't come to my own decision upon the existence of the Christian God. A deist God, or possibly a God hence unworshipped are what I am unsure about. When did Jesus claim to be God? I was under the impression that he didn't really make that claim, instead referring to God as "The Father". Feel free to correct me though, it's been some time since i've read the Bible.(This part gets a bit lengthy, but there's a point). I believe that the accounts of Jesus's life was something of a game of chinese whispers. The new testament was only really put together some hundred years after the death of Jesus. I suspect there was a character that Jesus's miracles were based upon, but I'm skeptical of the source. For an example of the chinese whispers, I'll use an event from my life. I was a witness, back in April, of an attempted murder. A guy I know was thrown in front of a truck, then stabbed 4 times beneath his right arm before he got the chance to run away. Within 2 days of that incident, I had heard that the knife was drastically longer than it was, that he had gotten stabbed an inch from his heart, that it was a drug deal gone wrong, and that he had gotten stabbed a dozen times. The idea that Jesus's life wasn't exaggerated seems highly unlikely, and I use this same argument against the Islamic idea that the Qu'ran is a perfect book as well.

Something that's invisible, and doesn't even live in our universe is utterly disprovable.

Did I honestly say that? My bad, I mistyped apparently. What I was trying to say was that something that is invisible and doesn't even live in our univers is NOT disprovable.

It's the quote about "who is not with me is against me" but it hardly matters as disbelief does not necessitate opposition.

Disbelief does necessitate opposition if one makes an argument up and against that which thewy do not believe. And, if it didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter, it should have:Not been brought upBeen better explained with supportive evidences.

The diffculty of trying to provide evidence for a negative is a reality. Why do you consider it a smokescreen?

There is absolutely no difficulty in proving a negative. And it is a smoke screen if someone uses it as a defense after they made an accusation. If you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make an accusation, or assertion, you need not defend that which you did not posit or submit!

I would define the supernatural as that which can never be understood by the natural sciences as it transcends natural causation.

What caused the laws of Logic, the laws of mathematics, the law of Gravity, Love (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦)? And donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t just give an opinion, give factual, empirical evidences.

I don't know many people who would consider phenomena such as memories or love supernatural.

Memories, Love, the Laws of Logic, the Laws of Mathematics (etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) fall well within the parameters of the definition of Ã¢â‚¬Å“SupernaturalÃ¢â‚¬Â (i.e. Ã¢â‚¬Å“relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural lawsÃ¢â‚¬Â.) So, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter if you (or those you know) consider them Ã¢â‚¬Å“supernatural or notÃ¢â‚¬Â, as they are not natural, or cannot be explained via natural means.

I was responding to comments you made about the supernatural and and about origins in post 116.

EasyÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ If itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the lack of belief on one thing, it is de facto the belief in its opposite. Therefore, if you say Ã¢â‚¬Å“I lack a belief in GodÃ¢â‚¬Â you are in fact saying Ã¢â‚¬Å“I believe there is NO GodÃ¢â‚¬Â.

I'm assuming you don't believe in Odin. It's an unnecessary word game to say that you believe in not believing in Odin.

No, it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. First, who is claiming Odin is real? What evidences have they posited the Odin exists? I can easily say Odin doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist, as I have done a thorough investigation into the historicity of many claims of gods (Greek, Norse etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦). And, if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d like to argue for the reality of oden, then open another thread and have at it. Because, in fact, that discussion is an equivocation of many of the rules of this OP; and it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even within the context of this OP. It is basically a red herring in this OP.

Pluto wasn't the best example, I'll give you that. But I believe that there are invisible fairies that go around causing seemingly random events to happen. I have friends that also believe in the fairies. Please disprove my pixies.

Where do they exist, and what have they accomplished? Can you list multiple credible sources who have witnessed said pixies, and have they been witnessed by multiple witnesses concurrently? What evidences have these pixies left behind that will attest to their reality and historicity? But, most importantly, what exactly, do pixies have to do with this OP? And please be precise, as you are bordering on many infractions of this OP (please re read the OP before you answer).

Being agnostic doesn't mean I haven't come to my own decision upon the existence of the Christian God. A deist God, or possibly a God hence unworshipped are what I am unsure about.

I must remind you again of the OPÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ It is not about God, but the atheists need to shift the burden of their need to back up their assertions. And, this (your argument) seems to be backing up my claim. Also, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve noticed that al lot of professed Ã¢â‚¬Å“agnosticsÃ¢â‚¬Â busy themselves with atheistic argumentation; pretty revealing actually.

When did Jesus claim to be God?

Throughout the Gospels

I was under the impression that he didn't really make that claim, instead referring to God as "The Father". Feel free to correct me though, it's been some time since i've read the Bible.

(This part gets a bit lengthy, but there's a point). I believe that the accounts of Jesus's life was something of a game of chinese whispers. The new testament was only really put together some hundred years after the death of Jesus. I suspect there was a character that Jesus's miracles were based upon, but I'm skeptical of the source. For an example of the chinese whispers, I'll use an event from my life. I was a witness, back in April, of an attempted murder. A guy I know was thrown in front of a truck, then stabbed 4 times beneath his right arm before he got the chance to run away. Within 2 days of that incident, I had heard that the knife was drastically longer than it was, that he had gotten stabbed an inch from his heart, that it was a drug deal gone wrong, and that he had gotten stabbed a dozen times. The idea that Jesus's life wasn't exaggerated seems highly unlikely, and I use this same argument against the Islamic idea that the Qu'ran is a perfect book as well.

Then you would be sadly misinformed, and have not really done any research into the facts. Again, I left you with a good resource.

Did I honestly say that? My bad, I mistyped apparently. What I was trying to say was that something that is invisible and doesn't even live in our univers is NOT disprovable.

Again, that is an assumption as well. There are vast amounts of phenomena that we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand, so to make such a statement, is to do so on faith alone.

No, it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. First, who is claiming Odin is real? What evidences have they posited the Odin exists? I can easily say Odin doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist, as I have done a thorough investigation into the historicity of many claims of gods (Greek, Norse etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦). And, if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢dÃ‚Â Ã‚Â like to argue for the reality of oden, then open another thread and have at it. Because, in fact, that discussion is an equivocation of many of the rules of this OP; and it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even within the context of this OP. It is basically a red herring in this OP.

Many neopagans believe in Odin. The proof of Odin's existence is all of creation. We wouldn't be here without the All-father. This is all hypothetical of course, but I think you understand my point. And here: You're asking me to prove my claim. Isn't that down to you to disprove the claim?

Where do they exist, and what have they accomplished? Can you list multiple credible sources who have witnessed said pixies, and have they been witnessed by multiple witnesses concurrently? What evidences have these pixies left behind that will attest to their reality and historicity? But, most importantly, what exactly, do pixies have to do with this OP? And please be precise, as you are bordering on many infractions of this OP (please re read the OP before you answer).

They are invisible, and live in forests all over the world. Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies. There have been multiple eyewitness sightings of fairies. Fairies still exist today, and they cause mischief across the world, in the forms of things we see as random events. And don't ask me to prove it, because the person the burden of proof is on the skeptic. (or at least that's what you're trying to say in the OP)

I must remind you again of the OPÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ It is not about God, but the atheists need to shift the burden of their need to back up their assertions. And, this (your argument) seems to be backing up my claim. Also, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve noticed that al lot of professed Ã¢â‚¬Å“agnosticsÃ¢â‚¬Â busy themselves with atheistic argumentation; pretty revealing actually.

I think that the burdun of proof does fall to the theist. Anyone can make a claim of anything, and we shouldn't sit back and seriously consider any concept. The burden of proof lies with the theist because they are making an extraordinary claim.Again, I am an atheist with regards to the christian God, but not of Theism in general.

Again, that is an assumption as well. There are vast amounts of phenomena that we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand, so to make such a statement, is to do so on faith alone.

How could you possibly test this hypothesis? There are penomena we don't understand, but they're in our realm of existence. They're also visible. If I was to propose that there was a God in control of God, could you prove me wrong? I doubt you could, but you'd still say that I was wrong. Again, I can't disprove the concept of God, and it's not up to the skeptic to prove that the God-God doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Really? And what are the evidentiary claims to back up that claim? You do realize you are, at this point, knee deep in equivocation.

We wouldn't be here without the All-father.

Again, what are the evidentiary claims?

This is all hypothetical of course, but I think you understand my point.

I understand that you have yet to make a cogent point. And you havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t provided any evidence to back up your assertion.

And here: You're asking me to prove my claim.

Absolutely, because you are making a claim, and you are responsible to provide evidence for it.

Isn't that down to you to disprove the claim?

Absolutely, and I will as soon as you provide your evidence for you claim. You just made three assertions above via the Ã¢â‚¬Å“saying itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s so, makes it soÃ¢â‚¬Â logical fallacy. As soon as you provide the evidence for your claim, we can get down to discussing the validity of your claim. But, the problem is, I already know the claims FOR the Norse god you will attempt to use, and am just waiting on you to make them. As I said, I have put in the time in these studies already.

So, the Atheists need reasons/evidence to back up their belief that God doesn't exist. They rarely ever provide any though.

No, normally what they do, is just what Kaliko has been attempting: Equivocation, wasting time, trolling, and not adhering to rules after being repeatedly warned.

He was also falsely accusing me of using the Ã¢â‚¬Å“it's so because God did it" fallacy, with his it's so because "OdinÃ¢â‚¬Â did it false analogy. And, thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an argument I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t use, and have never used. Therefore he was using it Ã¢â‚¬Å“a prioriÃ¢â‚¬Â and as a red herring, amongst other logical fallacies.

And, I almost forgot, he was using a false world-view:

Again, I am an atheist with regards to the christian God, but not of Theism in general.

Well I'm curious now, what are some of the empirical evidence for God?

Absolutely ANY empirical evidence that provides Ã¢â‚¬Å“the beginningsÃ¢â‚¬Â of anything is empirical evidence for a beginner! And ALL the evidence we have, logically, rationally and scientifically points to a beginner. So I ask:Is there any evidence for infinitude Ã¢â‚¬Å“ad infinitumÃ¢â‚¬Â (steady state) or does ALL the evidence point to the universe having a beginning?

Is there any evidence of something coming from nothing (Ex nilhilo nihil fit), or does ALL the evidence point to dependent phenomena the progeny of something that came before it?

Is there any evidence of life? coming from non-life, or does ALL the evidence point to life only coming from life.

Is there any evidence of intelligence coming from non-intelligence, or does ALL the evidence point to intelligence only coming from intelligence?

Also, for contextual terms, do not disregard the rest of post #81, in order to cherry-pick only one portion of the conversation.

I'm interested in this empirical evidence of god. Of course I assume this is evidence that anyone can observe and validate.

AbsolutelyÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Just insure you heed the above advise and points as well.

Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not (Academic American Encyclopedia).

Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason (Random House Encyclopedia-1977).

Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy-1995).

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods (Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995).

Atheism is disbelief in God (Introduction to Philosophy, Perry and Bratman, Oxford University Press-1986).

Atheism from the Greek a (not) plus theos (god). The doctrine of disbelief in a supreme being (Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, William Reese, HumanitiesPress-1996).

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996).Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist (The World Book Encyclopedia-1991).Atheism, Greek atheos-Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God (Oxford English Dictionary-1989)

Atheism, commonly speaking, is the denial of God. Theism (from the Greek theos, God) is belief in or conceptualization of God, atheism is the rejection of such belief or conceptualization.In the ancient world atheism was rarely a clearly formulated position (Encyclopedia Americana-1990).

Atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswerable, for the atheist, the non-existence of god is a certainty (The New Encyclopedia Britannia-1993).According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no godÃ¢â‚¬Â¦(rejects eccentric definitions of the word) (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967).

Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good (Encyclopedia of Religion-1987).

Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).

Atheism denies the existence of deity (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).

If you look to the Ã¢â‚¬Å“modernÃ¢â‚¬Â usage of the definition of Ã¢â‚¬Å“atheismÃ¢â‚¬Â, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll soon see where the equivocations of the definitions are attempting to meld atheism with agnosticism, so as to shirk the responsibility for providing evidence of assertions.

Further: the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“AtheismÃ¢â‚¬Â finds its etymology in the Greek combination of Ã¢â‚¬Å“aÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“theosÃ¢â‚¬Â. Which when translated, means Ã¢â‚¬Å“NOÃ¢â‚¬Â God! Ã¢â‚¬Å“AgnosticismÃ¢â‚¬Â, on the other hand, when translated means; no, or without, or lack of gnosis (knowledge) thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E. (i.e. they have no proof, evidence or knowledge on a certain subject).

For someone to claim atheism based upon a Ã¢â‚¬Å“lack of knowledgeÃ¢â‚¬Â, or a Ã¢â‚¬Å“lack of proofÃ¢â‚¬Â, for God, is simply Ã¢â‚¬Å“conversion by definitionÃ¢â‚¬Â. And this IS Ã¢â‚¬Å“equivocationÃ¢â‚¬Â, it IS Ã¢â‚¬Å“quibblingÃ¢â‚¬Â, and it very well can be dishonest.

The members of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“New Atheist movementÃ¢â‚¬Â (Dawkins etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) have attempted to further BradlaughÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ã¢â‚¬Å“burden shiftingÃ¢â‚¬Â assertion via this Ã¢â‚¬Å“conversion by definitionÃ¢â‚¬Â, by popularizing their definition of Ã¢â‚¬Å“atheismÃ¢â‚¬Â as Ã¢â‚¬Å“lacking belief in God or god(s). And they attempt this by applying the term Ã¢â‚¬Å“atheistÃ¢â‚¬Â to themselves. Then they pretend that they are not Ã¢â‚¬Å“technicallyÃ¢â‚¬Â making a statement about GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s existence or lack thereof. And they do so, as an escape from the the philosophic difficulty of proving a negative (i.e. God does not exist).

1- The Ã¢â‚¬Å“AtheistÃ¢â‚¬Â who positively affirmed GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s non-existence (claiming to know that God does not exist).

2- The "Theist" who positively affirmed GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s existence (claiming to know that God does exist).

HuxleyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s proposition (Agnosticism) was that he did not possess the evidence or proof to affirm positively either position. Therefore, he coined a term which he saw as a middle position, which was that of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Lacking the knowledgeÃ¢â‚¬Â to decide either way.

And here is an Atheist attempting to shift the definitions of Truth and Fact via the logical fallacy of Non Sequitur AND totally refuting his own relativistic statements with self-defeating logic. See post # 22: